When the Framework Outruns the Text

Answering Objections to Before We Import Mythology

After publishing Before We Import Mythology, several objections were raised that deserve a careful answer. Those arguments matter because they reveal a larger question: when does Scripture itself require a reading, and when has an interpretive framework begun to outrun the text?

My concern has never been that later Scripture or ancient literature are considered when studying a passage in Scripture. Those can be helpful. My concern is that disputed interpretive links in other Scripture itself or ancient literature outside Scripture are treated as explicit statements of it, while alternative readings are dismissed or criticized as though they have no textual or historical basis at all.

I want to be clear about what I do not deny. I don’t deny the unseen realm, angels, or demons. I don’t deny rebellion by divine or heavenly beings or powers hostile to God. My concern is narrower than that.

I ask whether Genesis 6, Deuteronomy 32, Psalm 82, Daniel 10, Jude, and 2 Peter actually require the specific Watchers/divine-territorial-ruler framework often placed over them or whether the texts can be read another way, one that is grounded in Scripture, the worldview of the biblical authors, and the language they actually used.

Not whether the framework is possible or whether it became influential. Even not whether later readers adopted it, but whether the texts themselves require it.

Before We Import the Nations’ Mythology
The title of my earlier article was deliberate: Before We Import Mythology.

That doesn’t mean ancient literature should never be studied or that the surrounding world is irrelevant. I know Scripture wasn’t written in a vacuum.

One point I do know is that Scripture itself warns Israel not to look at the nations’ paganism, the way they saw their gods, and bring their ways into Yahweh’s worship.

In Deuteronomy 12, Israel is warned specifically about the gods of the pagan nations and their method of worshipping those gods. That He will cut off the pagan nations before them as they enter the land, that they must not inquire after those nations’ gods, saying, “How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do the same.” They were not to worship Yahweh in that way.

Leviticus 18 gives the same kind of warning. Israel wasn’t to do as Egypt did, where they had lived, nor as Canaan did, where they were going. They were to walk in Yahweh’s statutes and judgments. That matters.

Israel wasn’t forbidden from knowing that the nations existed or from understanding the world around them. They were forbidden from allowing the nations’ ways of worship, imagination, the beliefs about those gods, and idolatrous patterning to become the framework by which they served Yahweh.

So, when we approach Genesis 6, we should be careful.

Ancient context can help us see what Scripture is resisting, correcting, or rejecting so ancient mythology of the pagan nations shouldn’t become the controlling lens through which Moses must be read.

That is the concern.

Text First Is Not Evidence-Proof
One objection raised against my approach is that asking, “Does Moses’ narrative require this?” creates a test that can’t lose. The claim is that if I can always say, “The text does not require that,” then no evidence can ever count against my reading.

But I’m not saying that unless Genesis 6 makes my reading unavoidable, all later evidence is inadmissible. Moses’ own narrative deserves first hearing in its own context before later interpretive traditions or later debated Scripture are allowed to control it.

That is not an evidence-proof method. It is textual priority.

One point made was I use later Scripture when supports the framework of my article but resist later Scripture when it doesn’t. But my article’s use of later Scripture is to show the range of biblical sonship language, and isn’t the same thing as allowing later disputed texts to determine the identity of Genesis 6.

Later Scripture can clarify, develop, echo, and apply earlier Scripture. But when later texts don’t explicitly name Genesis 6, the sons of God, the daughters of men, the Nephilim, or the Watchers, then we should be honest about what is happening. It’s not explicit identification being argued but instead a possible connection. It may be a reasonable connection, one worth consideration, but it isn’t the same thing as an explicit identification that many argue that it must be.

Possible isn’t the same as explicit.
Traditional isn’t the same as required.
Later interpretation isn’t the same as Moses’ own narration.

That distinction matters throughout this discussion.

Genesis 6 and the Sons of God
A central objection concerns the phrase “sons of God,” or bene ha’elohim. The argument is that in unambiguous Old Testament uses, the phrase refers to heavenly beings, and that there is no clear example where the exact plural construct means human rulers.

That argument deserves to be taken seriously. The exact phrase matters. I don’t pretend it doesn’t. But the exact phrase alone does not settle Genesis 6. Why? Because Genesis 6 itself is also one of the disputed texts being used to define the category of the phrase “sons of God”.

So the question in a disputed text isn’t just, “Where else does this exact phrase appear?”, but the question is also, “What is Genesis 6 doing in its own narrative?” before we assert other disputed texts over it.

Let’s look at its narrative. Genesis 6 opens with humanity multiplying on the face of the earth. The daughters being taken are daughters of humanity. The wickedness that follows is human wickedness. The corruption is upon the earth. The judgment that follows falls upon humanity and flesh.

That should matter.

The human-ruler reading doesn’t depend on proving that bene ha’elohim always means rulers or men in authority. It depends on whether Genesis 6, in its own narrative movement, is describing heavenly beings invading earth, or powerful human sons acting with divine pretension.

The language of “saw” and “took” also matters. The sons of God saw that the daughters of men were good or desirable, and they took wives from all whom they chose. That pattern fits predatory acquisition. It echoes the larger biblical pattern of desire, seizure, and transgression particularly among rulers, kings, even soldiers and others in the place of authority.

Powerful men taking women “from all whom they chose” sounds like abuse of power. Of taking harems. Of taking women against their will in groups for someone in authority to choose from at their will.

And in an ancient world where human rulers often claimed divine status, divine sonship, or divine authorization supported by the ancient Near Eastern worldview, that background doesn’t prove the human-ruler reading, but it does support that divine pretension, royal power, predatory taking, and name-making are not foreign categories by human men in authority to Moses’ world.

Genesis 6 then speaks of mighty men, men of name. That is important language in Genesis. Humanity’s pursuit of greatness, violence, and name-making doesn’t end in Genesis 6. It’s proven through Scripture, through history itself.

So the human-ruler reading isn’t built on one isolated word or phrase. It’s cumulative. Humanity multiplies. Powerful sons who believe themselves in authority, divine, above all other humanity, see and take. Women are treated as objects of choice. Mighty men and men of name emerge. Human corruption fills the earth. God judges flesh.

“He Also Is Flesh”
Another objection asks how the phrase “he also is flesh” works if everyone in the scene is already human, but that may be precisely the point. The phrase doesn’t have to become biological clarification. It can be divine reduction.

If the offenders are powerful human rulers acting with divine pretension, taking women as they choose, producing mighty men and men of name, then “he also is flesh” lands with force. However exalted they imagine themselves to be, they are still mortal.

Scripture regularly humbles exalted humans by reminding them they are dust, grass, breath, flesh, and mortal. Rulers are not exempt from this. Men of power and name are not exempt from this.

The phrase does not require non-flesh beings in the scene. It can be a judgment against human pretension that though they think of themselves as gods or like gods, above humanity in authority, they too are flesh.

The Nephilim and “Also Afterward”
Another objection is that a human-ruler reading explains the gibborim, the mighty men, but leaves the Nephilim standing in the room unaddressed. The Nephilim should be addressed, but they shouldn’t become a blank check for importing the Watchers story.

Genesis 6:4 doesn’t plainly say the Nephilim were the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men. But that they were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God went in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. This tells us that a group called the Nephilim were also there in those days during and after, not what species they were, human or heavenly or hybrid. And the children described in the verse are the mighty men who were of old, men of name. The text doesn’t explicitly say heavenly beings produced hybrid giants.

Numbers 13 is often brought into the discussion because the spies claim they saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, and that they seemed like grasshoppers in their own eyes. That text matters, but it also must be handled carefully. Numbers 13 is the fearful report of spies who discourage Israel from entering the land. It shouldn’t be treated as a simple biological footnote explaining Genesis 6 especially when the average person was less than six foot at that time. Anyone reaching seven foot or more would seem like a giant. How would most readers reading now feel walking among a group of NBA team players?

Yes, the Nephilim remain debated. But being debated isn’t permission to import the entire Watchers tradition into Genesis with the insistence that no other explanation or interpretation is acceptable.

Jude and 2 Peter: Connection Is Not Identification
Jude and 2 Peter are often treated as though they settle Genesis 6. I can state very clearly that they don’t settle it. They certainly speak of sinning angels or messengers, judgment, darkness, chains, boundary violation, and examples of rebellion of many persons or groups.

2 Peter places the angelic judgment near the ancient world and the flood. Jude places the angels beside other examples of rebellion and judgment. Those texts matter, but they don’t explicitly mention or paraphrase Genesis 6. They don’t use the terms “sons of God” or “daughters of men.” They don’t say “Nephilim” or “Watchers.” They don’t say “hybrid offspring.” So again, the connection may be argued, but it isn’t stated in the passage.

One objection asks, “If Jude and 2 Peter aren’t interpreting Genesis 6, then what event are they interpreting?” That question is based on the assumption that Jude and Peter must be referring to an event explicitly narrated in the Hebrew Bible. But Jude itself, in its own context, shows that this isn’t a safe assumption. Why? Jude also refers to Michael disputing with the devil over the body of Moses. That event isn’t narrated anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. This shows that Jude can refer to known material or tradition without that material or tradition being directly narrated in Genesis through Malachi. So the “unfilled slot” argument doesn’t settle the matter.

Of course, it may still be argued that Jude and Peter are referring to Genesis 6. But that argument must be presented as an interpretation on the part of the one presenting it, not as though Jude and Peter explicitly identify Genesis 6.

Implicit connection is not explicit identification.

Jude 7 and “These”
A related objection concerns Jude 7 and the word “these.” The argument of many is that Sodom and Gomorrah indulged in sexual immorality and went after strange flesh “in the same way as these,” meaning the angels of verse 6. Therefore, the angels’ sin must have been sexual, and Jude must be interpreting Genesis 6.

But Jude’s comparison in context still has to be read carefully.

Jude’s letter is full of boundary-breaking rebellion, arrogance, rejection of authority, defilement, and judgment. He begins with Egypt. Then the angels didn’t keep their proper domain or position. Sodom and Gomorrah crossed boundaries in their own way. He also speaks of the rebellion of Cain, Balaam, and Korah. The false teachers in Jude also reject authority, defile the flesh, and speak arrogantly.

So “in the same way as these” can connect Sodom to the angels as another example of boundary-crossing rebellion and judgment. It doesn’t require that every example committed the identical act in the identical way when Jude’s focus is rebellion, crossing boundaries, and speaking arrogantly. He also speaks of one who doesn’t cross a boundary, the archangel Michael, when facing the adversary. And, importantly, Jude doesn’t say this is the narrative in Genesis 6, and he doesn’t refer to Watchers. That matters.

Deuteronomy 4, 29, and 32: Allotment Is Not Abandonment
The larger divine-council framework often moves from Genesis 6 to Deuteronomy 32, arguing that at Babel God disinherited the nations and handed them over to divine beings.

But Deuteronomy itself needs to be read carefully in context as well.

When Deuteronomy 4 says the host of heaven was “allotted” to the nations, the reading doesn’t have to be read as God appointing heavenly rulers over them. Just before this, Moses is warning Israel not to worship created things, sun, moon, stars, images, animals, or any form made by human hands. The nations may worship many gods and created lights, but Israel may not. Yahweh has taken Israel as His own inheritance, which means Israel belongs to Him in a distinct covenant way. They aren’t permitted to add the nations’ gods, images, or heavenly lights into their worship of Him.

So the contrast is not that the nations received divine rulers while Israel received Yahweh. The contrast is that the nations worship what Israel is forbidden to worship, while Israel has been set apart to Yahweh alone. Israel is to belong to Him, worship Him alone, and become a light drawing the nations back to Him.

That is an anti-idolatry warning. The passage warns Israel not to worship the visible heavenly host. It doesn’t explicitly teach that God appointed divine beings as territorial rulers over the nations.

Deuteronomy 29 is also raised because it says Israel went and served other gods, gods whom they had not known and whom He had not allotted to them. Again, the context here is very similar to Deuteronomy 4, an anti-idolatry warning. The contrast is warning Israel of worshipping gods that are forbidden to them because they are set apart in covenant with God to be a light to the nations.

Nothing in Deuteronomy 29 shows that God appointed divine beings as rulers over the nations.

Then there is Deuteronomy 32:8-9. When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when He divided mankind, He set the boundaries of the peoples. Then verse 9 says Yahweh’s portion is His people, Jacob the lot of His inheritance.

The inheritance language in verse 8 is allotment, portion, possession, and boundary language. Inheritance is not naturally punishment, but a gift. Allotment is also not naturally abandonment, but something like a portion given within a boundary. Boundaries are not naturally exile to other gods, but most commonly given in the spirit of “do not cross” or what is owned or occupied within.

Verse 9 matters here. Yahweh’s portion is Jacob. If portion and inheritance language in verse 9 is relational possession, why must the inheritance/allotment language in verse 8 become punitive abandonment?

Deuteronomy 32 says the nations received inheritances and boundaries. It doesn’t explicitly say God handed the nations over to divine rulers.

That framework may be brought to the text, but the text itself doesn’t say it.

Romans 1: Handed Over to What?
Romans 1 is sometimes brought in to support the idea that God handed the nations over to other gods after Babel, but Romans 1 says God handed them over in the desires of their hearts, over to dishonorable passions, and to a debased mind.

The movement is clear:
Humanity rejected the knowledge of God.
They exchanged His glory for images.
They worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.
Therefore, God handed them over to the corruption they chose.

Paul does not say God handed them over to appointed divine rulers.

Romans 1 describes God handing humanity over to its own corruption, not assigning nations to other gods.

Psalm 82 and John 10: Judgment Scene, Yes. Identity Assumed, No.
Psalm 82 is another major text in this discussion. I agree that Psalm 82 is a judgment scene. God Himself stands in the divine assembly and judges among the elohim. The assumption is that the elohim are standing there in front of God, but we aren’t given that information. It says God stands in the divine assembly. God judges person, persons, nations, etc., without them standing there in front of Him.

The question is who is being judged. Are these divine territorial rulers over the nations? Or are they human rulers, judges, or authorities standing under divine authority and being judged for their injustice?

So let’s view the charges. They matter because they aren’t vague heavenly misconduct.

They are covenantal justice failures of judging unjustly, showing partiality to the wicked, failing to give justice to the weak and fatherless, and failing to rescue the afflicted and needy. Those are exactly the kinds of charges Scripture repeatedly brings against human rulers, not angels, heavenly beings, or divine beings.

It is sometimes argued that “you will die like men” is empty if the judged ones are already human. But that assumes the phrase is meant as biological clarification. It may instead be ironic humiliation. Those humans addressed with exalted authority language will die like ordinary men because they judged wickedly. Powerful rulers often forget they are mortal. Scripture does not.

John 10 is then brought into the discussion. Yeshua quotes Psalm 82: “I said, you are gods.” The argument is that His lesser-to-greater point only works if Psalm 82’s elohim are above ordinary men. But Yeshua’s argument doesn’t require Psalm 82’s figures to be heavenly beings. It requires that Scripture can use exalted divine or representative language for those who received God’s word or stood under delegated authority.

If Scripture could use such language there, why accuse the one sanctified and sent by the Father?

Daniel 10: Prince-Language Is Not Territorial Angelology
Daniel 10 is often used to support territorial spiritual princes. A Michael is called one of the chief princes and the prince who stands for Daniel’s people. The prince of Persia and prince of Greece are also mentioned. The argument is that if Michael is Israel’s appointed angelic prince, then Persia and Greece must also have angelic territorial princes.

And let’s remember here, most of Israel is in exile, but the line of David hasn’t ended. Somewhere out there they are keeping track of who is next in line for David’s throne should Israel be restored. Does Daniel know who this is? Possibly. Does Daniel know who are the ones who descend from David? Possibly. We don’t know. This is speculation only. It doesn’t rule the text. Is it a possibility? Definitely.

This argument that places Michael and the princes of Persia and Greece asks the word sar to do more than it does because the passage doesn’t clarify explicitly heavenly or human. The Hebrew word sar is used broadly for chiefs, rulers, commanders, officials, captains, and princes. It is overwhelmingly ordinary human leadership language in Scripture.

However, it is explicit in heavenly use in Joshua 5:14, where the figure identifies himself as commander of Yahweh’s army. In that case, the text supplies the heavenly military context directly.

Daniel is different. He calls Michael one of the chief princes, “your prince,” and the great prince who stands for Daniel’s people. Daniel doesn’t explicitly call him an angel or an archangel. Daniel doesn’t define the princes of Persia and Greece as divine beings appointed over nations.

Later Scripture calls an archangel, Michael, in Jude. Revelation portrays Michael and his angels in heavenly conflict. Those texts explain why many readers identify Daniel’s Michael with the later Michael. But that is a cross-text identification. Same name does not automatically mean same figure. Scripture contains repeated names: Enoch, Joseph, John, James, Mary or Miriam, and many others.

Daniel itself gives prince-language in its context. Later interpretation of Scripture written later supplies the argument of an angelic territorial office because the angel there is identified as a Michael. This doesn’t require denying the unseen realm or heavenly messenger in Daniel. Daniel 10 clearly includes a messenger bringing revelation to Daniel. But Daniel’s larger literary pattern should also be noticed in its context. His visions repeatedly concern human empires, kings, kingdoms, rulers, wars, alliances, and imperial conflict. Beasts represent kingdoms. Horns represent kings. Rams and goats represent empires. Imagery, yes. Daniel 10 opens the final revelation that continues into Daniel 11, where Persia, Greece, and later conflicts are described through human kings and imperial struggle.

Daniel 10 shouldn’t be detached from Daniel 11 or the former chapters and turned into a standalone doctrine of divine territorial rulers.

Prince-language is not territorial angelology.

Ancient Near Eastern Royal Background
Another objection is that appealing to ancient royal ideology imports a royal institution the text hasn’t mentioned. The argument is that Moses never explicitly called Pharaoh or any king bene ha’elohim. That objection is worth considering.

Ancient Near Eastern royal background doesn’t prove Genesis 6 means human rulers. But it does show that divine sonship claims, royal status, predatory taking, name-making, and human rulers acting with divine pretension were not foreign to Moses’ world.

If ancient context may be used to support a heavenly reading, then ancient royal background must also be considered as contextual support for a human-ruler reading.

The standard must be even.

Royal predation examples such as Esther or David and Bathsheba don’t prove the referent of bene ha’elohim. But they do show how Scripture portrays powerful men taking women under the cover of authority.

That pattern is relevant to Genesis 6. No, it does not settle the question by itself. But neither should it be dismissed as though it has no bearing on a passage where powerful sons see, choose, and take women from among they choose.

Enoch, the Watchers, and the Line I Will Not Cross
This brings me to the Watchers tradition. I don’t deny that 1 Enoch is ancient or that it was influential during the time of Jude or that Jude would know Enochic material from his own learning. I don’t deny that the Watchers tradition became important in some Second Temple Jewish interpretation. But ancient and influential are not the same as authoritative.

The Watchers tradition may show how some later readers, before and during Jude’s time, interpreted Genesis 6. It doesn’t prove that Genesis 6 itself teaches the Watchers tradition.

This is where I remain cautious.

The Watchers story shares recognizable ancient mythological patterns: heavenly beings descending, forbidden unions, giant offspring, forbidden knowledge, cosmic disorder, and imprisoned rebels awaiting judgment. Those themes may have been reshaped by Jewish writers influenced by other cultures around them, but they are still the kind of mythological material Scripture warns Israel not to import into the worship and understanding of Yahweh.

My argument isn’t that Enoch is simply pagan. It means the Watchers tradition moves in a world of ancient mythic patterns that would have been recognizable outside of Israel in the pagan culture around them. Before I allow that tradition to govern Genesis 6, I need Genesis 6 itself to require it.

Jude can quote or echo Enoch without handing Enoch authority over Moses.

That distinction matters.

Reception history can tell us how some later readers interpreted a passage. It can’t automatically become the voice of the passage itself.

Before We Import Mythology
This article isn’t a denial of the unseen realm or of angels.
It isn’t a denial of spiritual rebellion, judgment, demons, or hostile powers.
It is a refusal to let ANE mythology or other debated texts become the controlling framework for Moses.

The issue isn’t whether Genesis 6, Jude, 2 Peter, Deuteronomy 32, Psalm 82, Daniel 10, and ancient Jewish literature can be compared. They can. The issue is whether the links between them are being treated honestly.

If the text says something, we should receive it.
If the text suggests something, we should weigh it.

But if the text is silent, we shouldn’t force it to speak with the voice of a later framework.

Before we import mythology, we must ask what the text itself has actually said.

And where the text is quieter than the framework, we should have the humility to say so.

Other articles I’ve written regarding this same topic are listed below.

Before We Import Mythology

Before the Conclusion, The Questions

Psalm 82: Gods, Rulers, and the Justice They Failed to Give

Before We Mythologize Job: What Kind of Book Are We Reading?

The Accusation Beneath the Ashes